Show and Tell

[ShortHair]

An update to my anecdote. Not particularly germane to the thread, but it shows how writing works sometimes.

That wonderful scene where I showed instead of told? Cut. Xed out. Gone. It showed something too plainly, something I want the reader to see but not the narrator.

The scene before that one I had put off writing. Then inspiration struck. Use the action in the new scene to make the point from the previous scene, thus occupying the narrator's attention. Meanwhile, put the other point in the background so the narrator misses it, but the reader doesn't.

Now I have to start the next scene with a different description, different subplot, different characters. Challenge accepted!

 

[Addison]

Having "was" in your story isn't going to kill it. There's an article in Writer's Digest which discussed this. True it's important to show your story so readers are engaged. So they can be with the characters in the forbidden mountain or whatever. But that doesn't mean to cut your telling down to next to zero. As they said when you write a book "You are telling a story. That's why they're called storytellers not story showers. Kids ask their parents to tell them a story, not show them a story." You just have to balance it out, and their is a subtle way to show while you tell. Or show without the reader really knowing it. True there is appealing to the five senses: touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing. But there are others, thought, dialogue, action. Show a character balling their fists in anger, don't touch on the pain in their palms from their fist. Be creative but remember, you're still telling a story.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

As they said when you write a book "You are telling a story. That's why they're called storytellers not story showers. Kids ask their parents to tell them a story, not show them a story."

For this reason, I believe it's important to stress showing. It's natural for us to tell a story. New and more experienced writers will often lean towards a tendency to tell. It's unlikely for an author to look at a completed scene and think "that's too much showing. I should tell more." However, it's common to realize a scene is telling too much. That's why this topic is so highly stressed.

Because of this, teaching an inexperienced writer to concentrate on showing is usually a good strategy. I don't believe I've ever looked at a new writer's work an though "that's too showy". An experienced writer, in contrast, is making conscious decisions on when and where to use telling as a tool that benefits the story. They understand the concept to a degree that allows this "rule" to be broken for effect.

 

[JonSnow]

Having "was" in your story isn't going to kill it. There's an article in Writer's Digest which discussed this. True it's important to show your story so readers are engaged. So they can be with the characters in the forbidden mountain or whatever. But that doesn't mean to cut your telling down to next to zero. As they said when you write a book "You are telling a story. That's why they're called storytellers not story showers. Kids ask their parents to tell them a story, not show them a story." You just have to balance it out, and their is a subtle way to show while you tell. Or show without the reader really knowing it. True there is appealing to the five senses: touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing. But there are others, thought, dialogue, action. Show a character balling their fists in anger, don't touch on the pain in their palms from their fist. Be creative but remember, you're still telling a story.

I've found it really difficult to tell a story without using "was" once in a while. I've been agonizing over this passive narrator thing as I'm getting deeper into my own book. And I agree, it is not a bad thing to use it once in a while. Sometimes a simple "she was tired" is enough, without having to show the reader how her eyelids drooped and how she slumped in the chair. Like everything else, it DEPENDS on the context.

I'm reading Storm of Swords again (book 3 of Song of Ice and Fire), and last night I paid close attention to how George R.R. Martin uses a passive narrator. And he used "was" quite often. His telling and showing were in balance. I never felt like the narrator knew too much, and I never felt overwhelmed with excessive showing. "Was" isn't always bad.

 

[JonSnow]

For this reason, I believe it's important to stress showing. It's natural for us to tell a story. New and more experienced writers will often lean towards a tendency to tell. It's unlikely for an author to look at a completed scene and think "that's too much showing. I should tell more." However, it's common to realize a scene is telling too much. That's why this topic is so highly stressed.

Because of this, teaching an inexperienced writer to concentrate on showing is usually a good strategy. I don't believe I've ever looked at a new writer's work an though "that's too showy". An experienced writer, in contrast, is making conscious decisions on when and where to use telling as a tool that benefits the story. They understand the concept to a degree that allows this "rule" to be broken for effect.

Exactly. Showing is an important rule of thumb for new writers, who lack the patience to let the story/characters play everything out. Experienced writers will figure out on their own when to show, and when to tell, and can balance these effectively.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I agree Jon. Trying to eliminate "was" from your writing isn't necessary.

Furthermore, there are instances where "was" is a better word to use than another. Specifically this is true where the sentence emphasis should be on another word (let's say a verb) & not the subject of the sentence.

Example:

"The creature laughed."

OR

"It was laughing."

Both say the same basic thing. However, the 1st sentence focuses attention, to a greater degree on "creature". The 2nd focuses on "laughing". Same idea.... Different feel.

It solely depends on where, you the writer, wants to place emphasis. The point in guarding against "was" is to ensure you're making conscious choices and not just writing from habit or lacking depth (also to guard against passive voice, which incidentally, can also be used as a tool).

 

[Butterfly]

Here you go, everything you need to know about the word 'was'.

This Itch of Writing: Have you heard the one about "was"?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Here you go, everything you need to know about the word 'was'.

This Itch of Writing: Have you heard the one about "was"?

Nice link Butterfly. Thank you.

 

[Butterfly]

You're welcome.

 

[Shockley]

I suggest picking up a copy of The Great Gatsby, that seminal American novel, and seeing how many times 'was' pops up.

Spoiler: At least four times a page. At the very least.



There are people out there who are overly worried about the actual 'craft' of writing. I am one of those people, but I'm more lenient when it comes to showing and telling. As long as the work flows and the story is good, telling is just fine.

 

[ShortHair]

Trying to eliminate "was" from your writing isn't necessary.

Furthermore, there are instances where "was" is a better word to use than another. Specifically this is true where the sentence emphasis should be on another word (let's say a verb) & not the subject of the sentence.

Example:

"The creature laughed."

OR

"It was laughing."

Both say the same basic thing. However, the 1st sentence focuses attention, to a greater degree on "creature". The 2nd focuses on "laughing". Same idea.... Different feel.

Actually, the second example uses a progressive verb form. The first example indicates a single action, one laugh that begins and ends during the course of the sentence. The second indicates that the action is continuous, that the laughing could have begun before that point and could continue after that point.

In some cases there's no real distinction. "The rain fell" and "The rain was falling" say the same thing because we expect rain to be a continuous action.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Actually, the second example uses a progressive verb form. The first example indicates a single action, one laugh that begins and ends during the course of the sentence. The second indicates that the action is continuous, that the laughing could have begun before that point and could continue after that point.

In some cases there's no real distinction. "The rain fell" and "The rain was falling" say the same thing because we expect rain to be a continuous action.

I don't disagree.

I was just trying to point out that the structure or choice of wording can place emphasis on different parts of a sentence. For most purposes those sentences accomplish essentially the same thing. "The creature laughed" doesn't necessarily imply that the laugh is a singular act. If I said "I laughed" that can mean I went "Haha!" but it would be just as accurate as a description of "Hahahahaha Hahahahaha!".

"It was laughing" does imply that the laugh was continuos. I'll give you that.

In your example, "The rain fell" & "The rain was falling" - I feel the emphasis on "rain" in the first & "falling" on the second. My only point was to draw attention where "was" can be used as a tool for a certain effect.